SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[Old_Scholar]

Any other Catholics starting to see a pattern in all the Protestant frothing in this forum lately? It gives me the impression that to get baptised and accepted into some of these Protestant churches they have to first come over to this Catholic site, toss a gauntlet of absurdity and prove that they can take a beating of truth as an act of sacrifice to God!.

How can you put faith in Sola Scriptura when it was formed 1500 years distant from the Catholic Church’s formation of the bible and cannon? Protestants simply reinvented scripture by tossing out things that did no agree with what they wanted to believe and supported their human thesis. Scripture alone is not the end all and its certainly not like a sort of all you can eat, self-serve Christian buffet where you leave the okra, peas and carrots in favor of the plain vanilla ice cream and apple pie. It takes tradition and a respect for the early fathers to know that one should be taught on how to understand rather than presuppose one knows more than their parents. Geeze, this sounds like the typical sort of rebellion and disrespect we see in today’s teenagers against their parents…

Relying on a philosophy like Sola Scriptura is like buying Webster’s dictionary to self learn how to read. The problem there is you can only do it one word at a time but will always lack enough knowledge to have the necessary critical mass to be ability to read with comprehension the definitions of the meanings of the words. Furthering the analogy, it becomes not only absurd but patently offensive and disrespectful to then string along enough insight to have the gall to write Webster letters of admonition telling him he does not understand what he wrote!! Be at least grateful that The Catholic Church made it possible for you to even have a compilation of early church writings.

Sola Scriptura is not only laughable its insanity as well as condescending to the respect of the elders (fathers) of the Church and axiomatically non-scriptural itself.

James

It’s nice to see that you have very little knowledge of Sola Scriptura. The early church fathers, during the first three centuries wrote that anything that could not be substantiated from Scripture was false. This was not an invention of Martin Luther or anyone else. It was believed by the Catholic Church until after it became the Roman Catholic Church. That’s when it began to be a problem. If the fathers said Scripture was infallible in itself, then the false doctrines could not be taught. So then they went to “tradition.”

 

[guanophore]

We are told that the Scripture is sufficient for everything.

No, “we” are not told that. If you have been taught that, then your teachers were in error.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

These things are very important, but not “sufficient for everything”. If they were, we would have doctrinal unity, would we not? If they were, Jesus would not have to establish a church, would He? And, when disputes arose, where did He tell them to go? To the Bible?

In either case, this verse is referencing the OT, as the NT was not yet written. So, can you live a successful life as a Christian without your NT?

We are also told by Christ to “search the Scriptures” not check your memory…

Well, both things are told to us. Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Peter says that he is writing down everything in order to be sure we have what we need.

Actually, that is not what he said.

Christ condemned the traditions of men and instructed us to heed the Scriptures. He never once said to pay attention to tradition.

It is true that He criticized traditions of man, especially when they pulled men away from God. However, He himself followed the traditions, and taught them to His Apostles, who taught them to others, and commanded that we should all follow them.

Knowing how things are passed down orally, how can you possibly believe you are told the truth verbally when it has been thousands of years.

Because I don’t think Jesus is a liar, or a weakling. I believe Him when He said He would send His spirit to guide into all truth.

In the first and second century, even with the written word, heretics were already distorting what they had learned and the ECF had a very difficult time keeping the truth in the church and not heresy.

Perhaps so, but by the Power of God, the Gates of Hell did not prevail.

Look at what has happened to the church since the 3rd century. Search the writings of the early church fathers, especially the first and second centiry, and see if you can find the doctrines and dogmas the RCC teaches today. It just isn’t there.

I think there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.

It is necessary to have written Scriptures and anything oral cannot be trusted.

It is obviously necessary for us to have writings, or God would not have inspired them. However, if nothing oral can be trusted, then you can’t trust anything that is in the NT, because it was all oral first.

Church history has shown that. That’s why God had the Scriptures written down so we could not go wrong but unfortunately there are those who won’t believe them.

Anyone can go wrong reading the Holy Writings in a vaccuum. They were never meant to be separated from the Sacred Oral Tradition which produced them.

The early church fathers, during the first three centuries wrote that anything that could not be substantiated from Scripture was false.

They also wrote that nothing should be done apart from the Bishop, who represented the Apostolic Authority. They did not teach apart from the Authority appointed by Christ, and the Holy Writings.

This was not an invention of Martin Luther or anyone else.

What Luther added to that was pitching out the Authority.

It was believed by the Catholic Church until after it became the Roman Catholic Church. That’s when it began to be a problem. If the fathers said Scripture was infallible in itself, then the false doctrines could not be taught. So then they went to “tradition.”

This is not an accurate statement. If you believe that Sacred Tradition is “Roman”, I dare you to take up the matter with the Orthodox. Ask them about the Dormition of Mary while you are there.

 

[Pwrlftr]

I said that all the doctrines are traced back to the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. I never said I could satisfy your impossible criteria of a proof. You reject the extant evidence, and require evidence that is impossible to produce, even to prove that Jesus existed, or that there is such a thing as Christianity.

In a nutshell, you asid that “all the doctrines are traced back to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.”

This is taken on faith, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because you can’t prove that the apostle taught everything your church now believes.

Certainly by using the standards you have created. Neither, by using those standards, can I prove that Jesus ever existed, or that He started a Church.

Think about what you just said. You have the NT which testifies of Christ.

All I remeber asking for is some evidence that this particular belief existed at the time of the apostle and didn’t first appear on the scene centuries later.

Yet, the original manuscripts that the fathers were using no longer exist!

I don’t recall asking for an original manuscript.

 

[juliamajor]

OT canonicity and NT canonicity are completely different like comparing apples and oranges. Last Time I looked the NT canon
was the same for ALL christians- so what’s the beef with that!

 

[guanophore]

In a nutshell, you asid that “all the doctrines are traced back to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.”

This is taken on faith, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because you can’t prove that the apostle taught everything your church now believes.

It is taken on faith, but there are many sources. The fact that you do not accept them does not negate their existence.

Think about what you just said. You have the NT which testifies of Christ.

Yes, but the NT proceeds from the same Sacred Traditions that the other doctrines do, and no original manuscripts exist. Therefore, if you want an original manuscript, you have to throw out the NT too.

All I remeber asking for is some evidence that this particular belief existed at the time of the apostle and didn’t first appear on the scene centuries later.

I think it does not matter, since the notion of the Trinity, worship on Sunday, and the hypostatic union, just to name a few, are not found in the Apostolic writings either. However, if you really want to get into this, lets go to one of the threads that is already discussing the subject. You can pick. Just search “assumption” and pick one.

I don’t recall asking for an original manuscript.

You wanted writings from the early fathers, right?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Actually…we do there are a tremendous number of sources for us to read these things. Not the least of which is The Vatican website.It does not and if you take the time to read the link I offered in my first post you’ll see that that is so. The style and composition of Hebrews is drastically different from St. Paul’s writings and it nowhere even purports to be from him. Just because the closing mentions Timothy does not mean that this wasn’t written by Barnabas or even possibly by St. Luke. :shrug:That’s actually easier than one might think. In reading the ECF one will come to discover that quite clearly, and I doubt very seriously that you can cite any proofs to the contrary. But if you can, then by all means do so.
This is so grossly twisted as to be difficult to follow. The Orthodox will of course refute you from their own position, and I would welcome one to do so, as I readily acknowledge, as the Catechism says, Wrong! It cannot be valid because it contradicts the Word of God which it purports as it’s own authority. The myriad divergent doctrines or the modern post reformation step children is merely a (very indicative) fruit of that.

You cannot use the Orthodox as your case, since you are as greatly divided from them as you are from us Catholics. Your doctrine is errant even by their standards and I dare say that if we do get a good Orthodox poster to address that here in this thread, you will appreciate his responses about as much as I’m sure you do my own. You lose. Pay up.

Of course you would believe anything on the Vatican website. Yet you won’t believe the Bible. How strange!

As to the writing of Hebrews, this has long been debated but the Pauline authorship definitely gives the book a Pauline cast and it would seem appropriate that it was written by Paul or more likely by Sylvanus, his constant companion and one who was well versed in linguistics and methodology. We know Paul did not physically write all his epistles as he brags at one time that he signed his name in his own hand. But it seems to be Pauline in its nature.

I see you dodged the opportunity to tell me the “one way” a person could prove the Roman Catholic Church was the one and only church of Christ. Didn’t I predict that?

I noticed as well that you also didn’t answer my question about the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Does this prove my point as well?

You also deny *Sola Scriptura *because you say it contradicts the Word of God. I notice you didn’t elaborate on that.

You seem to prove my point about not getting answers. You just either ignore them or say they’re too difficult to answer.

I agree with you that a point has been proved!

 

[CentralFLJames]

The other poster seems to believe that all your church’s various teachings can be traced back to time of the apostles which it clearly can’t. The assumption is but one example.

If you can somehow provide “proof” of this, post it. If you can’t, which you apparently can’t judging by your post, please admit that your church has no way of tracing this belief (assumption) back to the early church.

The real question here is are you looking for proof or are you looking for truth? I find it remarkably odd that Protestants accept their “salvation” in faith without explicit proof that even one single Protestant has ever been saved by the speculation of Luther or similar men. Yet these same demand physical proof on everything else that is outside of their own private circle of belief. That said, there are references and works that we can point to. But no doubt these will be called insufficient. Our beliefs extend together from church teaching, authority, tradition and rational deduction arising from the nature of Jesus and the nature of love itself.

The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension.

If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

*St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. *

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

More at Feast of Assumption

Also Pius XII in forming doctrine asked the opinions of all the Bishops of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof (Cf. Lumen gentium ## 25 and 12).

The inspired record of the incidents connected with Christ’s Resurrection do not mention Mary; but neither do they pretend to give a complete account of all that Jesus did or said.

[continuing on next post since out of space]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continuing from prior post]

Here are the valid ways however that The Church came to this doctrine.

1. First and foremost there is a profound intimate relationship of Mother Mary as mother of Jesus all through scripture. I won’t bother enumerating them all.
2. Just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and final sign of this victory, so also that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her Son had to be closed by the ‘glorification’ of her virginal body" (AAS 42. 768).
   3a) Pius XII also examined early christian traditions and came up with a unique insight. He deduced: For the likeness of the Mother of God and the Divine Son in regard to nobility of soul and body–a likeness which forbids the very thought that the heavenly Queen should be separated from the heavenly King–absolutely demands that Mary ‘must not be anywhere but where Christ is.’ And furthermore, it is reasonable (I add: with respect to the very semantic of universal) and fitting that not only the *soul and body of a man, *but also the soul and body of a woman should have already attained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never sought for bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin, nor exposed them for the veneration of the faithful, we have an argument which can be considered as ‘practically a proof by sensory experience’" (AAS 42. 765-66).
   3b) Pius XII also drew on the writings of St Francis. St. Francis de Sales, who “after stating that it would be wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has kept in the most perfect way the divine commandment that children honor their parents, puts this question: ‘What son, if he could, would not bring his mother back to life, and take her, after death, into paradise?’”(AAS 42. 766).
   3c) There are many other works from the treasure of teaching in the Munificentissimus Deus used to form this doctrine.
3. The guidance to truth by scriptural guarantees of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in all matters of truth (recall virtually ALL bishops were in concordance with this doctrine)

More here:
Mary’s Assumption

My own way of looking at this is as follows:
No one after reading the marriage at Cana account can deny that Mary did not have a profound and universally unique relational connection to her Divine Son that was “special” and superior to all others save God the Father (and The Holy Spirit). Mary was human - but predestined and held special and sinless by God’s grace to bring Himself Glory. Just as Mary was given the privilege of bearing Jesus through the Incarnation it is also scripturally clear that she was also given a special intercessory relationship with Jesus. This is through the intimate relationship arising through her familial authority (as mother of Jesus) that actually pre-figures a similar authority in the Church. She petitioned Jesus to perform His first miracle and Jesus obliged her out of not only love for Her (and out of love for God in bringing Him Glory) but also out of a compelling moral obligation to honor one’s parents. If God can trust Mary to bear His Divine Son certainly God can trust Mary to responsibly invoke her maternal relationship to beseech Her son in a way that is in perfect concordance with God’s will directed through the avenue of motherly love. It is also clearly rational and a proper divine protocol that God also wished to honor Mary for her obedience to Him in bearing His Son. Thus Mary in fact is the mother of the Church by virtue of being the arc that bore Jesus. From here is pure reason to see that 3a above is true: … which forbids the very thought that the heavenly Queen should be separated from the heavenly King–absolutely demands that Mary 'must not be anywhere but where Christ is.

So we all need to get on board here! Mary still has a profound role to play in God’s Plan.

James

 

[Pwrlftr]

It is taken on faith, but there are many sources. The fact that you do not accept them does not negate their existence.

I’m not sure what you mean by the “many sources”.

Yes, but the NT proceeds from the same Sacred Traditions that the other doctrines do, and no original manuscripts exist. Therefore, if you want an original manuscript, you have to throw out the NT too.

I never asked for original manuscripts. I’m not sure why you are fixated on the original manuscripts?
guanoaphore:

I think it does not matter, since the notion of the Trinity, worship on Sunday, and the hypostatic union, just to name a few, are not found in the Apostolic writings either. However, if you really want to get into this, lets go to one of the threads that is already discussing the subject. You can pick. Just search “assumption” and pick one.

I find it interesting how catholics will claim that the trinity came from tradition when it is laid out in the scriptures. Worship on Sunday…same thing. If you want to use these as examples you can but unlike certain of your church’s doctrines these have are explicitly found in scripture.

You can go to the most ardently sola scriptura seminary and you will find text after text written on the trinity all based on…scripture
guanaphore:

You wanted writings from the early fathers, right?

Yeah…but that doesn’t mean that I wanted the original manuscripts.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The real question here is are you looking for proof or are you looking for truth? I find it remarkably odd that Protestants accept their “salvation” in faith without explicit proof that even one single Protestant has ever been saved by the speculation of Luther or similar men. Yet these same demand physical proof on everything else that is outside of their own private circle of belief. That said, there are references and works that we can point to. But no doubt these will be called insufficient. Our beliefs extend together from church teaching, authority, tradition and rational deduction arising from the nature of Jesus and the nature of love itself.

The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension.

If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

*St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven. *

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

More at Feast of Assumption

Also Pius XII in forming doctrine asked the opinions of all the Bishops of the world on the Assumption. Their response was almost unanimous in the affirmative. The universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself, he tells us, gives us a proof (Cf. Lumen gentium ## 25 and 12).

The inspired record of the incidents connected with Christ’s Resurrection do not mention Mary; but neither do they pretend to give a complete account of all that Jesus did or said.

[continuing on next post since out of space]

James

James,

I’ll re-read your post but what I was looking for is proof that a belief in the assumption existed somewhere close the time of the apostles. I understand what your church teaches and don’t need it re-gurgitated here.

 

[Old_Scholar]

What it is wrong? The Church? According to who is it “wrong”?

The many differences and the church not being able to make up its mind about what belongs and what doesn’t.
Source please? Not that individuals of the Church rejected James and Hebrews but that the Church made a definitive pronouncement rejecting James and Hebrews and then reversed itself.

Well, you mean the infallible church decided it wasn’t infallible?

Infallibility was promised to only one Church.

Same answer as above. How many times has the church reversed itself? How many popes have reversed other popes?
Gee, maybe it was because they didn’t get the email? Seriously, do we really think things moved as quickly in the ancient world as they do today?

But the council in 393 said one thing and then in 397, another council said another…
It did not add the apocrypha in 1546. The Deutero’s date back to the Council of Rome in 382. It was Martin Luther and company that removed these books upon their own authority.

The real Catholic Church kept the apocryphal books out of the Bible but included them as non-authoritative, for reading and historical purposes only. The only reason the Council of Trent declared them canon was to refute Martin Luther.(and by “real”, I mean the non-Roman Catholic Church.)

Loaded question… of course, Catholics can engage in private interpretation. As long as their personal interpretation of a particular verse does not violate the teaching of the Church. In other words, I can take a look at John 21:11 which talks about the net of Peter not being torn (the greek here is translated to schizo upon which the word schism is derived) and I can interpret that to mean that Peter’s net is the Church and that it will never schism. That is my personal interpretation. It does not conflict with any teaching from the Church so I am able to maintain my interpretation. However, if I look at Matthew 26:26 and think that Jesus is talking symbolically and that the Last Supper is purely symbolic, then I am not free to engage in that interpretation. How do we know which organization to listen to? The one that was given the authority of Christ— the one that was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and earth. The Catholic Church.

Then what you mean is that you can make your own interpretation as often as you like, just as long as it doesn’t disagree with the church’s position??? Strange!

Are you talking about the Jewish canon? If so, then I would have to say that He didn’t provide them with a list at all. They (the Jews) made up their own list, probably in response to the destruction of the temple and the conversions to Christianity. Since their canon does not include Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, etc, we know that their list is not infallible.

It is the claim of your church that Christ didn’t give the Jews the canon. The Old Testament was canonized 500 years before the books you list were written.

Can’t say I follow the logic here. At the time Timothy was alive there was only one Church. What happened a thousand years later does not affect the meaning of the scripture. By the way, the Catholic Church fully acknowledges that the Orthodox has valid apostolic succession through the various Apostles.

At the time of Timothy, no church claimed authority over another. Even 3 hundred years later, there was not one church that had authority over another. It is true Rome tried to claim such authority but it never was able to until the 5th century. Most of the ECF opposed one church having authority over another.

Who says we don’t possess copies of the documents? True, the Catholics of the middle ages didn’t have access, but then again, most of them couldn’t read anyway.

If you had copies of the “Holy Tradition” then you would be quick to present them. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved that the Scriptures we have are accurate. Nothing in Scripture has been changed but your tradition contradicts it.

tradition with a small t is not authoritative.

In the days of the apostles, tradition only had a small t. Tradition to them was not the Scriptures but the tradition of how a church was formed, operated; how services were to be conducted, etc. Nothing about changing Scripture or having “hidden” Scripture was even thought of. That came much later.

It seem I am still not getting real answers but rather deflections.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Question for Old Scholar,

What Protestant group do you belong to or more closely identify with, and how did you arrive at it being the truth?

I belong to the church that Christ established. The one that lives by His teachings as He gave us through His apostles. If it isn’t in Scripture, then I don’t believe it regarding faith and morals. This is the same church that existed for the first few hundred years before the Romans took control of it.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well, if it wasn’t the Catholic Church that gave us the bible, then WHOEVER did give it (Protestantism, Holy Sprit, etc.) was the one who got it wrong?

Are you actually speaking against the Holy Spirit? Do you really think the Holy Spirit got it wrong? I’d be a little careful about that!

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant

I’ll begin with your questions about the canonization of the New Testament.

We first must discuss the Old Testament. It was canonized by the Jews as it was their book. Documentation for that comes from the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. He names them, although in the Jewish manner, as 22 books. However breaking them down as they are today, they are the original 39 books, since we separate the songs and prophets. Josephus says the books are divided into three divisions, the same three divisions as the Massoretic text. Nothing has been added to this canonized Old Testament, including the apocryphal books. They were never a part of the Old Testament.

Nothing has been added to these books since the reign of Artaxerxes, since the time of Malichi. Artaxerxes reigned from 464 – 424 B.C.This is nice and all but you completely ignore the Alexandrian text as if it did not exist, and also pretend that the Jews did use it, when we know for a fact that they did.

I find it interesting that you reject what the church actually held as canon and actually misstate what councils proclaimed as canon, while appealing to Josephus and Jewish sources that rejected Christ, instead of the believers who paid with their lives for our most holy faith.

Furthermore, we know of the canonized Old Testament because Jesus quoted from it extensively. He said the Scriptures, at that time, were complete. Read John 5:39 and Luke 24:44. Jesus testified to the authority of the Old Testament, the Law, the Writings and the Prophets; the threefold division.

I’m glad you brought that up because I can prove that this will support the Dueterocanonical books. here is a list of DC passages quotes in the New Testament to make this point.
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT and this , from my friend Wolsely is posted on my own blog. The Deuterocanonical Books of the Catholic Bible

The New Testament does not speak of a completed canon of Scripture, but it does testify to writings already considered to be the Word of God. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture. He cited Paul’s letters as Scripture.

When Paul wrote to Timothy, he quoted a passage from Luke as Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, and Luke 10:7.

No contest here.

The earliest list, of the New Testament was drawn up by Marcion. He did not claim his list to be authoritative but it did demonstrate that the idea of a New Testament canon was accepted at that time.

And well he should not since he was definitively condemned by the early church (St. Irenæus in particular) as a heretic.

Here again, you choose to appeal to a source that is not valid authority. First the Jews and now one who was known for heresy.
Why is that, when there are so many real Christian sources and authorities that are valid?

I’ll address the rest in a post later…I have some life to attend to.

 

[VociMike]

OldScholar,

You claim that the deuterocanonicals were only added to the Catholic canon at Trent. Would you please document when the Gospel of John was added to the canon?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Here is the history one more time:

The canon was articulated at the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome. The articulation of the Canon at the Council of Rome was affirmed by the Decree of Pope Damasus. This all took place in the late 4th century.

This same Canon was affirmed and declared infallible at the Council of Florence in the early 1400’s and affirmed again at Trent in the 16th century.

If you dispute the authenticity of the Catholic Canon or the Church’s consistency in articulating the Canon of Scripture, then the burden is on you to show even one Catholic Council that ever differed from the conclusions articulated by the Councils listed above.

I will save you the trouble of doing the research. This canon has never been changed within the Catholic Church and it has never been articulated differently at any Council of the Catholic Church.

You are certainly incorrect here. It was constantly changed from council to council.

Well let’s see. The council of Carthage and the council of Hippo gave different lists of the canon.

Jerome made a distinction between the canonical books. Augustine also had his separate canon. John of Damascus had a list, then Gregory the Great had a different list. They doubted the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, as did Walafrid, Nicolas and Tostado.

There was a great deal of disagreement on the canon for many years. The infallible church couldn’t make up its mind. Was it because the Holy Spirit was not guiding it?

While the 6th Ecumenical Council accepted the canon of the council of Carthage, they also accepted the canons of Athanasius and Amphilocius and they were all different.

John of Damascus in the 8th century listed the books as we do today, without the deuterocanonical books, as did Jerome.

I could go on and list many before Trent but for one to say it was always the same is disingenuous.

So that answer can’t be accepted.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I’m just gonna focus on this one aspect of the current rant. This assertion is not only false, but astonishingly, embarassingly false (especially given your screen name). I defy you to demonstrate that the apocrypha (a scholar would use the correct term, “deuterocanonicals”) was added at Trent. The only way that you can maintain that the deuterocanonicals were added at Trent is to also maintain that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Romans, etc, etc were also added at Trent.

The apocryphal books were never considered canonical until Trent. That’s a fact!

 

[Pwrlftr]

OldScholar,

You claim that the deuterocanonicals were only added to the Catholic canon at Trent. Would you please document when the Gospel of John was added to the canon?

The gospel of John was never “added” since it was always inspired.

 

[Pwrlftr]

The apocryphal books were never considered canonical until Trent. That’s a fact!

What do you make of Carthage and Hippo?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Can we expect him to actually listen to reason and logic? Because, his pastor says…

He has clearly been influenced by the spirit of antichrist. That spirit leads one to doubt the authority of Christ’s church, the perfection of the founding of Christ’s church, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yes, the spirit of antichrist is, unfortunately, alive and well. Pray for him.

Christ’s peace.

Sorry but if you want to talk about the anti-Christ, I believe the Bible to be the complete, inerrant Word of God. Fortunately that exempts me. Do you believe that? Or do you believe the words of man, instead of God? Do you not remember what Christ said about following the traditions of man instead of Him?